LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Regulate Drug Pusher Profits

A couple weeks ago an old friend drove from Austin to Waco to have
lunch with me. Both he and his wife have diabetes so twice a year
they drive from Austin to Mexico and purchase a six-months supply of
drugs. The cost of American-made drugs in Mexico is less than half
what the same drug costs in Austin.

For years people living in northern Maine drove across the border
into Canada where they could buy American-made drugs for half what
these same drugs cost in Maine. Recently the legislature in Maine
passed a law making it illegal for Maine drug pushers to charge more
for American-made drugs in Maine than what these same drugs sold for
in Canada. This cut the cost of drugs in half for Mainers. Great
happiness. It also reduced the big drug companies down to a good
profit instead the killing they been a getting.

Several years ago I was in a shop in Hong Kong waiting on my wife
when I observed the negotiations between two enormous black women,
the wife and daughter of the head of an African nation, and the
people in the store. All Hong Kong natives are fluent in both Chinese
and English. The black women could speak their native tongue and
French. Without a common language the women were having to draw what
they wanted. At one point both women opened their large purses and
produced a wad of American hundred-dollar bills that was as big as a
wheel of cheese. This is a language that is understood in the far
corners of the planet earth.

Our legislature goes back in session next January. If we can find
a mouse that is brave enough to bell the cat then that mouse should
introduce a bill making it illegal for Texas drug pushers to charge
more for American-made drugs in Texas than what the price is for the
same drugs in Mexico. When this took place in Maine it was observed
that there are only 1.25 million people in all of Maine so doing this
kicked up a cloud of dust about equal to a three-horse posse. But
when the big drug pushers see 20 million Texans about to get their
drug bills cut in half they will come. And since they are all rich as
Croesus they will bring several wheels of cheese. If our state
legislature can refuse to be bought out we will get a law which will
be worthy of a great deal of singing and dancing in the streets. If
they elect to take the bribe then someone needs to point out to them
that being bribed by big drug pushers is like buying a ticket to the
lottery where the winner gets a free vacation in Huntsville
[headquarters for the state prison]. Since this is so bad for
their reputation they need to be sure to get heap big moola for
it.

ROBERT PARNELL
Waco, Texas

End Sales Tax

I must disagree with your editorial in the 6/1/00 PP.
Rather than supporting the sales tax for purchases made over the
Internet I think the thrust should have been just the opposite. End
the sales tax for all businesses and consumers. As you stated in your
editorial the sales tax is an extremely regressive tax that falls on
those that can least afford it.

The issue of not taxing Internet sales should be taken as the
beginning of the end of all sales taxes. Ending sales taxes helps
small local businesses and consumers alike. To replace lost tax
revenues I recommend and advocate progressive taxes. Tax shifting
from the regressive sales tax to Green/Pollution Taxes and collecting
rent on Land Site Value without the possibility of tax abatements are
two of the best strategies progressives can use.

Thank you for your wonderful paper. One suggestion though,
actually a request, is could you supply the content in PDF format for
those of us that use computers. These issues could be e-mailed to
subscribers. This would save the cost of paper and ink and give me a
more convenient means of reading and storing the issues.

Regards,

MICHAEL J. CYKANA
Arlington, Texas
Email mjcykana@home.com

Editor Replies: We currently provide as an
alternative to the printed edition email text which is particularly
useful for reading impaired and overseas subscribers as well as those
who are mindful of saving trees. Readers who would be interested in a
PDF format please email us at populist@usa.net.

Choice Makes My Choice

[Re. "Your Precious Presidential Vote," by Donella Meadows,
7/1/00 PP]: There is only one issue in the coming presidential
election that should engage every woman voter: the upcoming openings
on the Supreme Court. How any woman, concerned with the fate of
Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, could waste a vote
on Ralph Nader (and thereby handing it to George Bush) is beyond me.
I'd like to remind Ms. Meadows that George W. is the son of the man
who gave us Clarence Thomas and I see nothing in the current
Republican candidate that reassures me that he is capable of
improving on his father's record.

I am a dedicated conservationist, but I am greatly concerned that
three seats on the Court will becoming up in the next four years and
that this is our only chance of preserving the fragile right given us
by Roe v. Wade. Or is it possible that you think it should be
rescinded? I personally think all politics need a good cleaning, but
until that remote possibility presents itself I am sticking to the
one candidate who is openly supportive of a woman's right to choose
-- Al Gore.

JANE PURSE
Los Angeles, Calif.
Email Daltonziva@aol.com

Don't Sacrifice Organics

I applaud Donella Meadows' call for more precision in the language
we use to describe consumer goods, directing, as she puts it, a
"kick" at those who would "muddle the words we use to distinguish
mediocrity from something better" (Global Citizen, 7/1500). However,
I don't feel that the term "organic" should be sacrificed to the use
of corporate agribusiness, just because they deign to practice what
Meadows terms "mildly good agriculture". The term should in no way
come to mean less in terms of food safety and sustainable growing
practices than it does now. If corporate agribusiness wants to use
the term "chemical-free", when appropriate, that would at least be
less muddlement. The terms "green" and "natural" have already been
rendered almost meaningless by being co-opted by those who saw a way
to capitalize on the feel good fallout from early ecological and
environmental activism. Let's call things what they are, in as
precise terms as possible. Maybe we can put bumper stickers on all
the SUV's -- labeling them for what they are, vehicles that Suck Up
Valuable resources.

STEPHANIE J. WEIGEL
Madison Wis
Email catinmoon@yahoo.com

Use Tax Credits

Those were two excellent articles, "In Hot Economy, Why are so
Many Left Out in Cold?" by Tim Styer etc. and "Working Parents Labor
Below the Poverty Line" by Marcia Duffy [7/15/00 PP].
These are the people always left out when new solutions are created
to solve their problems. There is a certain wisdom in helping this
group of people help themselves.

Here's a possible solution for many of these on the bottom of the
pay scale. Let us imagine that an employer who pays a person minimum
wage, or near that, might also offer to pay the education expense to
any accredited school, for any subject that the employee would attend
and pass. It could be for English as a second language or an
engineering degree -- whatever. This would be a perk of the job.

The key to making this happen would be a tax "credit" to an equal
amount for the employer. Maybe the credit is worth more than the
actual cost, but some members of Congress would have to have this
incentive to approve such a tax break for small businesses. A nice
feature of this plan is that it would be an easy system for the IRS
to monitor and any scheme to falsify a tax statement would subject an
employee to a tax audit.

Duffy's article ends with the quote "training the low wage
workforce is the long term answer. The problem is that people get
stuck in low-wage jobs and have no way of getting out." This plan
might even have people seeking low-wage jobs with a cooperative
employer, just to get an education. The military used that gimmick
for a long time.

BOB CASSIDY
Eugene, OR 97403
Email bcassidy@efn.org

Immigration has Solutions

Howard Pellet, in a Letter to the Editor (7/1/00), defends his
anti-immigration stance and claims his anti-immigrant argument is not
racist and that he isn't immigrant bashing.

Pellet ignores how immigrants contribute to our society in a
variety of ways. He ignores that the immigrant is often trying to
escape the very global economic programs that we impose on the world
and how we have:

(ogonek) Stolen billions from third world countries for debt
repayment.

(ogonek) Stolen resources that belong to third world countries,
but which go to support Pellet's standard of living. (It is stunning
how people like Pellet ignore the direct benefits they receive from
exploitation of third world prison/slave labor and our domination of
the natural resources of other countries. Like a modern day British
colonialist Pellet sees only what "they" take from us -- not how much
we have taken from them now and historically.)

Pellet claims that he is merely about civil discourse, but there
is nothing "civil" about saying, "I don't care if you starve, just
don't interfere with my standard of living."

As for "discourse," Pellet knows only one repetitive refrain:
"Keep 'em out." But turning the US into a giant gated community
solves nothing. The bottom line, Mr. Pellet, is that if we don't
address the underlying economic/political issues desperate immigrants
will come here whether you like it or not. They have no choice. Only
a sustained political movement/holistic approach will address global
poverty, resource allocation issues, and overpopulation.

There are ways that can global poverty can be ameliorated. Oxfam
International, for example, has proposed a
"debt-for-poverty-reduction" program. Under this scheme, debtor
governments would be granted relief on the condition that 80 percent
of the savings generated is channeled into social investment
projects. Debt relief would thus be coupled with national plans for
poverty reduction.

Finally, Mr. Pellet, it is your cavalier willingness to cast aside
so many (especially when there are solutions to these problems) that
I find so reprehensible.

Sincerely,

LARRY SIEGEL
Bedford Hills, N.Y.

Won't Feel Guilty

Well, there they go again, trying to make us feel guilty for
attempting to stem the tide of illegal aliens flooding into the
Southwest United States. It seems that, in the minds of Gonzales and
Rodriquez, the United States does not have the right to control its
borders nor to protect US property from the vandalism and wanton
destruction which is wrought by illegal aliens from Mexico and points
South. I wholeheartedly disagree and will argue that point with
fellow liberals who have been brainwashed by such propaganda.

And don't forget, we are just getting one side of the story, their
tale where innocent Mexicans and others are "killed with impunity" by
the Border Patrol, where "a war on immigrants by politicians" has
resulted in untold butchery along the border. For once, I'd like to
hear the other side of the story, that of an understaffed and
outnumbered Border Patrol trying to hold the line so that the US
Southwest will not become overrun by illegal aliens.

The solution to avoiding the situation "that results in thousands
of deaths and vigilante violence" (their words, not mine) is to start
vigorously applying employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens and
also to raise minimum wage laws so that US citizens, such as poor
blacks and resident Hispanics will want to apply for those jobs
instead of illegal aliens. Sure, we might have to pay more for
foodstuffs and other products, but we would be providing jobs for
needy Americans instead of illegal aliens.

Instead, Gonzales and Rodriquez want the presidents of both
nations to hammer out a labor agreement that would decriminalize
illegal immigration and regulate the flow of labor in this country.
Well, I disagree with this concept. If we can't control our borders
with a Border Patrol and vigilantes that are reputed to kill illegal
aliens with impunity, how will some vague, "decriminalized" version
of controlling illegal immigration work? The answer, as Gonzales and
Rodriquez well know, is that it won't.

HOWARD A. PELLETT
Anacortes, Wash.
Email cpellett@cnw.com

Set Aside Divisive Issues

It's apparent that a "progressive" movement is doomed if we
continue to suck on the same pacifiers which divert our attention
from our primary objective. Gun control, abortion, the death penalty
-- these are complex issues which need to be addressed; but not at
the expense of a possibly successful movement. If we all focus on the
issues which separate us the progressive movement will be divided
into many small parties, all subscribed to different strict agendas.
Only when we focus on what binds us all will we be successful. There
is strength in numbers, especially in a democracy. Until we bind into
one unstoppable force we will continue to be seen merely as left-wing
dissenters who do nothing but complain. As the election nears it's
important to keep our common goal in mind and leave the moral,
right-vs.-wrong issues on the side until a more appropriate time.

P.S.: I urge all to write the Commission on Presidential Debates,
1200 New Hampshire NW Box 445, Washington DC 20036, and protest the
exclusion of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan from the debates because of
their financial inferiority in comparison to Gore and Bush.

JESSE HEATH
Marshfield, Wis.
Email jesse_h@usa.net

Open Letter to Nader

As a passionate supporter of the same issues that you champion, I
volunteered in 1996 to be a coordinator of your presidential campaign
in two counties in South Jersey: Cape May and Atlantic.

In the upcoming election season the Green Party of NJ asked me to
run for Congress under your banner. With the four years passing my
greatest passion as both a public citizen and physician is to raise
consciousness on the insane Drug War holocaust occurring in America.
I think you are missing a great opportunity to galvanize the greatest
groups of activists, drug policy reformers.

Major issues you remain silent on include:

1) Initiatives to move toward decriminalization of victimless
crimes, including possession of small amounts of marijuana.

2) Debate oil hemp as a major potential source of pulp and paper
substitute

3) Acknowledgment that the war on drugs has failed and the drug
problem is greatly worsened,

4) Support for drug counseling and treatment for those who need
it.

5) Opposition to mandatory drug testing on civil liberties
grounds,

6) Support for new sentencing policies, including community
service for first-time offenders and "Drug Court" diversion
programs.

The Gore/Bush drug warrior blather needs to be challenged and if
not you, who?!

Colombia's military recently received one billion dollars plus in
military aid. This military is considered to be one of the world's
worst abusers of human rights.

Needless to say the people need a genuine hero and that courageous
warrior needs the energy of the people.

I truly believe that if you accept this drug war insanity
challenge it will lift your candidacy, but more importantly, your
soul to the heavens.

Sincerely yours,

STEVEN FENICHEL, MD
Ocean City, N.J.

Family Farmers Need Action

In 1998, the National Commission on Small Farms called on
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman to take action to clearly
define and aggressively prohibit price discrimination and volume
premiums that are destroying the livestock markets and decimating
family farm and ranch livestock producers.

We can't afford to wait until the next market free-fall. Inaction
will most assuredly lead to a countryside dotted with a handful of
very large, vertically integrated, industrial hog operations. These
operations have every intention of removing the economic benefit of
livestock production from our rural communities and have little or no
regard for the quality of life in rural America.

(1) Write Vice President Al Gore. The Vice President came to Iowa
in the caucus season and told family farmers that he would fight for
them. This was a message meant for all farmers. Write him and tell
him that now is the time to reaffirm his commitment. Urge him to call
the Secretary of Agriculture and ask him to immediately issue rules
on price discrimination. Write Vice President Al Gore, c/o John
Winski, Old Executive Building Rm 286, Washington, DC 20501; Fax:
(202) 720-5759

Kudos

I just read my brother's copy of PP's 6/15/00 edition.
Terrific work. Jim Hightower and Molly Ivins are two of the most
"with-it" Texans around. And I must agree that Arianna Huffington
does have something worthwhile to say despite reader Sabo's image of
her [see Letters]. But my favorite writer in this issue was
Ted Rall, the Bob Dole movie critic. If he can peg 'em THAT well with
never having seen the flicks, think how effectively he could skewer
the movies if he actually looked at 'em. Keep up the good work!

LARRY RETZACK,
Ogori, Japan.

Why Gore or Bush?

We should all be asking everyone: Why don't Gush and Bore stop
taking votes from Nader or any other candidate who may be qualified,
since Bore and Gush have no qualifications for the job. We should
stress that the major parties have chosen total zeros and we need
better.

PETER GRANT
Bristol, Vt.

Won't Get Fooled Again

In 1948 I cast my first presidential vote. My father had managed
to persuade me that a vote for Henry A. Wallace (the Ralph Nader of
his day, but an actual politician) was a vote for the loathsome
Republican, Thomas E. Dewey. I have regretted voting for Truman ever
since.